CB:

"Sounds like you are making a big deal out of syntactical foible (puzzle
even)of philosophy itself, philosophizing about it in your reference to
"reification". So why can't Engels deal with a syntactical blunder ?"

Well, I could not follow your point here.

Recall, I am not making a 'big deal' as you put it, merely highlighting the
substantive truths metaphysicians have always treid to derive from such
crass errors.

They make the big deal, I merely expose its brainlessness.

"CB: I don't see where you have shown that one can't ask the question"

Well, you can certainly compose something with a "?" at the end, but that
does not make it a question.

Is this a question:

"Is being more or less identical with wasing?"?

If you think so, then linguistic naivety might be your only defence.

"What do you like about them?"

I was being polite....

"At this later time, what will be the relationship between our thinking
and what will have been?"

I suggest you sober up.

RL






----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown@mich...>
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'" <marxism-thaxis@list...>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:06 PM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science


> rosa
> Well, it uses the present participle of the verb to be, reifies it and
> makes
>
> a big deal out of a syntactical blunder.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Sounds like you are making a big deal out of syntactical foible
> (puzzle
> even)of philosophy itself, philosophizing about it in your reference to
> "reification". So why can't Engels deal with a syntactical blunder ?
>
> ^^^^^
>
> It is nit thgyat vthere is no such thing as Being, it is that the question
> cannot even be asked.
>
> A bit like saying:
>
> "The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent
> philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and Will Have
> Been".
>
> Brainless.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: I don't see where you have shown that one can't ask the question
>
> "The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent
> philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and Will Have
> Been".
>
>
>
>
> I cover this at my site.
>
> As I said, that is why I posted it.
>
> How many more times!
>
> ^^^
>
>
>
> Your comments of the dialectician dillemma are welcome,
>
> ^^^^
> CB; Good. What do you like about them ?
>
> ^^^^
>
>
> but recall I only
> posted that material to you to show you my ideas are original.
>
> I will reply to your errors later.
>
> RL
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: At this later time, what will be the relationship between our thinking
> and what will have been ?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis@list...
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>



_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@list...
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis